Why Christians and parents should vote YES ON ISSUE #1 IN AUGUST and NO IN NOVEMBER

Ohioans have two opportunities to protect parental rights in the next four months. In August, we must decide on Issue #1, an amendment that will protect the Ohio Constitution from being too easily tampered with. Issue #1 accomplishes that protection by raising the bar for the passage of an amendment ballot initiative from fifty percent to sixty. This helps to protect our Constitution from being crowbarred by special interests and the progressive movement. I have already exposed the deceptive claims of those opposing Issue #1 and have written on why you should vote YES on Issue #1 in AUGUST. You can read that article here.

In November, the ballot will contain another proposal to amend the Ohio State Constitution. This amendment is entitled, The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety. I’m urging Ohioans to VOTE NO to this amendment initiative IN NOVEMBER. This amendment would be a disaster to parents and children if it should pass.

A brief examination of the actual text of the proposed amendment will easily show why this amendment is a really, really bad idea. Here’s the first paragraph:

1. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on:

1. contraception;

2. fertility treatment;

3. continuing one's own pregnancy;

4. miscarriage care; and

5. abortion.

Let’s examine it part by part:

• Notice that while there are five specific areas of “reproductive decisions” identified, the explicit language opens it up to other not-identified areas of “reproductive decisions” when it says “including but not limited to”. What might those other areas include? Gender transition is one obvious answer.
  

• Notice that there is no definition of the age of the individual covered by this amendment. It simply says, “every individual.” According to this amendment, a minor, a child of any age, has the right to “make and carry out” their own reproductive decisions. This means your twelve-year-old daughter has a right to an abortion, no matter what you as a parent might say or do. You are out of the picture. It means your seven-year-old son has a right to decide to transition as a girl—no matter what you as a parent might say or do.
  
  Am I manipulating you with a scare tactic? No, indeed. Haven’t you been reading the news about what is ALREADY HAPPENING? Anyone who follows the news knows that the progressive movement has been successful in erasing parent’s rights in the matter of abortions, gender identity, and gender transitions of their children, aided and abetted by progressive school boards. School districts are hiding from parents their children’s attempts to transition. Parents are being accused of child abuse if they refuse to allow their children to transition, or if they even use the “wrong” pronoun.
  
  No, this isn’t a scare tactic—it’s a warning that in November, this erosion of parental rights will become part of the Ohio Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a matter in which past performance DOES guarantee future results. Parents have no rights in this amendment. And because this is an amendment to the Constitution and not simply normal legislation, if it passes, a court can rule that the amendment invalidates any prior legislation recognizing your rights as a parent in these areas.
  

• By the same token, this amendment makes abortion wide open for any and every reason, at any and every point in pregnancy: “Every individual has a right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions”. The restriction placed on abortion in the case of fetal viability, found later in paragraph B, is elastic: if the treating physician believes the mother’s “health” is at stake, abortion is permitted at any point of gestation. The expression, the mother’s “health,” has not in recent years been restricted to her physiological health but has been expanded to her mental and emotional health. This suddenly becomes a “right” to abortion at any point simply if the mother doesn’t want the child.
  

What about paragraph B? Here’s a portion of the actual text:

2. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either:

1. An individual's voluntary exercise of this right or

2. A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right,

unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.

• This means a school teacher, guidance counselor, or anyone else, even a boyfriend, could assist your teenage daughter to get an abortion without your knowledge and without your consent—even over your opposition. It means some third party could seek to convince and then assist your minor son or daughter to secretly attempt a gender transition, without your permission and without your knowledge They would face no legal consequences for it.

 You might argue that these are extreme slippery-slope possibilities, and that reasonable people would not interpret the law in this wild-west fashion. You’re wrong about that, and I can easily prove it.

Think about this: when it was originally passed, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 was intended to provide women the same opportunity to participate in sports that men had. Those who passed the law knew what a woman was. They never intended the law to enable biological males to compete against women, use women’s locker rooms and showers, etc. And look where we are now, precisely because the progressives HAVE taken the language of the law to an unimaginable extreme.

Regarding the slippery-slope, what sane individual of twenty years ago could have imagined “Drag Queen Story Hour,” or “men chest-feeding babies,” or “pregnant people,” or custom-taylored personal pronouns? Do you really think the progressive moment will stop short of pressing the vague language of this bill all the way to the breaking point? I don’t. They have ALREADY demonstrated they will take the inches given to them and turn them into miles.

For the sake of parents and children, this amendment must be defeated. It will be easier to defeat if you VOTE YES ON ISSUE #1.

VOTE YES ON ISSUE #1 IN AUGUST!

VOTE NO ON THE REPRODUCTIVE AMENDMENT IN NOVEMBER!

Don't be fooled about Issue #1!

 There is a great deal of confusion circulating in Darke County regarding Issue #1. There’s also a great deal of deception about it, but more on that in a moment.

The progressives are playing a two-step game with the Ohio Constitution: one step in AUGUST (defeating Issue #1), and one step in NOVEMBER (passing the The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety amendment to the Ohio Constitution).

Let’s talk about the second step first, the NOVEMBER step.

The progressives are proposing an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that will put children and the unborn at risk. This amendment has the very real potential of taking a child’s gender identity, medical gender transition decisions, and abortion decisions, out of the hands of the parents. The language of the amendment is intentionally very vague, and open to wide-ranging interpretation. This amendment will be voted on in NOVEMBER.

I will write a second article in a few days explaining why this terrible “Reproductive Freedom” amendment is an unmitigated disaster for parents and children, and must be defeated. As things stand now, all that is necessary for that terrible amendment to become enshrined in the Ohio Constitution is a simple majority vote (fifty percent plus one vote) in NOVEMBER.

Which brings us to the first step. The progressives want to defeat Issue #1 in AUGUST. They want you to vote NO to Issue #1. Why?

Because Issue #1 raises the bar for amending the Ohio Constitution. In other words, if Issue #1 passes in AUGUST, it will make it harder to pass the Reproductive Freedom amendment in November.

I’ll expose the efforts to mislead the voters practiced by these people in just a moment, but first I will state the matter simply:

YES on Issue #1 in AUGUST will make it harder for the progressives to win in NOVEMBER.

NO on Issue #1 in AUGUST will make it much easier for the progressives to win in NOVEMBER.

Issue #1 is about making it more difficult for special interests groups to trample on the rights of the rest of us. At the present time, a mere majority vote (fifty percent plus 1 vote) is all that is required to permanently amend the Ohio Constitution. Issue #1 would have two principal effects: it would raise the bar to sixty percent. It would also make it more difficult to get a proposed amendment initiative on the ballot, by requiring the signatures of at least five percent of the voters in every county in the state (five percent based on the total number of votes in the last gubernatorial election in each particular county).

Before we expose the basic dishonesty of the ad campaigns that the progressives are publishing, let’s take a moment to understand the relationship of the Ohio Constitution to legislative acts. The Constitution is the citizen’s first line of defense against unwise, unfair, or unconstitutional legislation. When a legal case is brought that challenges a state law, the state judiciary uses the text and words of the Constitution to determine whether the law in question should be upheld, or struck down in whole or in part.

If citizens believe that the Constitution is not adequately protecting their rights, or believe that laws have been passed that are unjust, they can attempt to gather enough signatures to put a constitutional amendment initiative on the ballot to correct the problem. Once the amendment is on the ballot, if a sufficient number of citizens vote for it, it becomes part of the Constitution, providing boundaries around what the Legislature may and may not enact.

A well-written Constitution protects the rights of the citizens, including the helpless and vulnerable, against powerful individuals or special interests whose priorities collide with those of the citizens. Consequently, the Constitution is not a document that should be easily tinkered with. It should be protected by making it harder to amend.

What about my charges of deception?

#1. The League of Women voters is posting an advertisement entitled, “Protect Ohio’s Constitution, Vote No on Issue 1.” It is true that the current Constitution can be amended by simple majority. Issue #1 would change that, raising the bar from 50% to 60%. The higher requirement does a better job of protecting the Constitution from powerful special interest groups. At the very least, League’s claim is misleading. Voting down Issue #1 does not protect the Constitution, but leaves it in its current state of vulnerability to powerful, well-heeled special interest groups, like Planned Parenthood and other sexual revolutionaries.

#2. That same ad claims that passage of Issue #1 eliminates majority rule in Ohio. It does not. Another ad claims that Issue #1 would allow 40% of voters to “make decisions for the rest of us.” Totally false. Normal legislative acts in Columbus would continue to pass with a simple majority, as they do now. Issue #1 would not change that at all.

If the progressives want laws that favor their ideology, they can propose and pass them in the Legislature with a simple majority vote. Issue #1 will not change that! But they should not be allowed to tinker with the Constitution on the basis of a simple majority. By the way, ask yourself, why do the bylaws of the League of Women Voters require a two-thirds vote to change them, when that same organization wants a State Constitution protecting the rights of millions to be changed at the whim of a simple majority? What happened to “one person, one vote”?

And as long as we’re talking about majority rule, ask yourself: has there ever been a time in America where a majority oppressed a minority? How did that turn out? Not good at all. Do you really think it’s a good thing to enshrine that possibility of oppression in the Ohio State Constitution? I don’t.

#3. That same ad claims that Issue #1’s passage “will render the ability to present a voter-led petition virtually impossible.” That’s a totally false claim. Issue #1 only raises the bar regarding petitions that propose to amend the Constitution—but not for other petitions. The text of Issue #1 is explicit: “Require that any initiative petition filed on or after January 1, 2024 with the Secretary of State proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio be signed by at least five percent of the electors of each county based on the total vote in the county for governor in the last preceding election.”

The problem for the progressives is the requirement in Issue #1 that sufficient signatures be collected from ALL of Ohio’s counties. Issue #1 does in fact require that, but it only applies to initiatives to amend the Constitution, not to other ballot initiatives. I believe this portion of the Issue #1 language would actually benefit all Ohioans, not just those in large cities. Ask yourself: does it often wind up being the case that the voters in Columbus or Cincinnati or even Dayton have a very different set of values from the voters in Darke County? Do you want a few large cities to be able to crowbar the state Constitution in liberal, progressive directions? Wouldn’t it be more fair if ALL the counties of the state had a voice as to whether or not an amendment initiative to the Constitution was placed on the ballot? This is what Issue #1 would accomplish.

I’m voting YES for Issue #1, and so should you.

In my next piece, I will explain the disaster that will face Ohio parents in November if Issue #1 does not pass.

VOTE YES FOR ISSUE #1

AND SHARE THIS POST WITH YOUR FRIENDS!

Why you—and your teens—should read The Candidate

 First, it’s an exciting tale about a Christian conservative who suddenly finds himself an unlikely independent candidate in the presidential election. Filled with action, intrigue, and characters you will love, the novel provides a fascinating (fictional) behind-the-scenes look at the machinations of national campaigns and the agenda-driven reporting of mainstream media.

More importantly, the tale is a teaching tool about the Founders’ intention standing behind the text of the Constitution. In addition to reading books and articles on presidential campaigns and contemporary constitutional issues, while researching the story I also read the Constitution (of course!) and the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers, a series of articles written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in 1788, was an effort to explain the thinking behind the Constitution and to encourage the states to ratify it. Each chapter of The Candidate is headlined with a relevant quote from the Federalist Papers, or other significant historical documents.

Readers will gain a fundamental working knowledge of our three branches of government and the checks and balances written into the Constitution. The Candidate will also provide responses to several of the slanders the modern progressive movement throws against the United States and its history.

The pacing of the book might cause you to miss your bedtime, and by the end of the story you’ll be wishing Henry Marshall was an actual choice on the ballot. I certainly wish he was! The tale is written from a biblical worldview, contains no obscenities or sex scenes, but does have a few scenes of violence. Available in print or ebook format from Amazon or from your favorite bookstore through the Ingram catalog. Signed print copies are available from me.

Comments from Amazon readers:

• “I recommend The Candidate, with one warning. It's hard to put down.” -Laura V

• “I skipped class today so that I could finish the book. I've read all Cobb's books and this one is near the top…” -T Setliff

• “I started reading books by C. H. Cobb a few years back. His works are really what got me back into reading. The Falcon series being the first and then on to the Outlander Chronicles, with his unique writing style and outstanding attention to detail of the locales and characters in his novels. The Candidate is no exception. . . . While it is a novel, it's obvious that the author has once again done his research into what our founding fathers intended as they formed our nation, wrote the Constitution, and established the three branches of government, specifically as it relates to the federal government. A definite must read.” -C Denlinger

• “Just finished this last night and was sad to see it end as it was such an interesting read. While it is a novel, it was also very educational about our Founding Fathers and the Constitution. A very believable plot and set of characters. So real, in fact, I wish we could have Henry Marshall as an actual candidate.” -A Nilsen

• “Excellent and thought provoking read that I could not put down!” -J Mattheis

 

Review of Joseph Ellis, The Quartet

At the close of the Revolutionary War Americans tended to view themselves as citizens of sovereign states that were organized into a loose cooperative, not as citizens of a new nation composed of united states. That understanding was codified into the Articles of Confederation. Any hint of a united nation was anathema to the colonists-turned-revolutionaries: that sort of unity smelled like the monarchy they’d just spent precious blood and treasure to escape. Nationhood was the farthest thing from their mind, something viewed with suspicion, not favor.

It was the prescient knowledge of the “quartet,” the four uniquely talented patriots of whom Ellis writes that foresaw coming disaster if the thirteen states failed to unite firmly into a national government worthy of the name. The Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was called by the Confederation Congress to correct the deficiencies of the Articles that had by this time become glaringly obvious. These four men, with the help of several others, hijacked the Convention and wrote a wholly new constitution. Their action—which went far beyond the commission granted by Congress—was technically illegal and constituted a second American revolution.

This is the thesis of Joseph Ellis’s remarkable book, and using primary sources he builds an airtight case for it. Heavily documented but so engagingly written it reads like a novel, the book traces the upbringing and early careers of the quartet: George Washington, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. Ellis manages to explain—very believably, I might add—how their backgrounds influenced these four to think and act as they did. The author points out the flaws in the Articles of Confederation, but also explains the political temperature of the populace so we can understand why the Articles came to have such short-comings. Ellis does a great job tracing the sometimes secretive and circuitous means by which three of the four principals managed to put together a convention that would take the radical step of replacing rather than revising the Articles. Along the way they also faced the difficult task of convincing the fourth, George Washington, to throw his considerable political clout behind the effort.

Ellis treats us to the best of the debates and behind-the-scenes maneuvering as the Convention squabbles its way through the creation of a blueprint for a strong federal government capable of administering the massive continent of North America, while leaving a great deal of sovereignty in the hands of the states.

Having recently read The Federalist Papers, this book greatly added to my understanding of the crucial moments and movements of that important post-war period. In closing I should also say that Ellis boldly resists the modern error infecting much contemporary historiography. He refuses to judge the Founding Fathers by the canon of contemporary post-modern “correct” behavior. Ellis evaluates them by their own times and morals and avoids the trap of turning the Founders into either semi-divine saints or slave-holding devils. He has a refreshing objectivity and offers the reader a much more accurate account of late eighteenth-century America than will the politically-correct pieties of many modern historians. I highly recommend this book.

The Federalist Papers: A Sad Irony

In 1777 the Second Continental Congress circulated among the thirteen states a constitution by which the several states in loose union would be governed. It was called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, often referred to as the Articles of Confederation. The states ratified the compact by 1781.

It was a document created during our war of independence and, quite naturally, among its chief concerns were to provide a central government possessing the authority to wage war, conclude treaties, and provide for international trade.

Article one formally gave to our new nation its name, The United States of America. The second article addressed a fear near to the heart of every eighteenth century patriot: having just broken away from a monarch they did not want to permit the establishment of a central government possessing absolute authority. Consequently the Articles granted to the confederation government only such powers as expressly delegated in the document, all other powers being explicitly reserved to the sovereign states.

The Articles granted Congress the exclusive authority to wage war, exchange ambassadors, enter into treaties, set the terms for commerce with other nations, establish weights and measures, including coinage, as well as several other powers. However, no enforcement mechanisms were provided.

By 1783 the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were becoming obvious. For instance, the Treaty of Paris ending the war with Britain was drafted in November of 1782 and signed in September a year later. However it was not ratified by Congress until January of 1784. Part of the delay was caused by members of Congress failing to show up—and the confederation government had been given no tools to enforce attendance. Similar problems were experienced as the young nation tried to pay its large war debt. When the states failed to cough up their allotted portion, the central government had no means to force them to do so.

It was apparent that the Articles were inadequate to the task of governing the nation, so a constitutional convention was convened. By late 1787 the new constitution was submitted to the states for ratification. It was vigorously opposed by some who feared that the creation of a strong federal government would overwhelm the sovereignty of the states and eventually lead to tyranny.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay thus wrote a series of articles published in New York under the pseudonym Publius that sought to counter the arguments of the anti-federalists. The collection of eighty-five essays is now known as The Federalist Papers and set forth the benefits of a strong federal government.

The shocking and sad irony we find at this moment in our nation’s history is this: the modern federal government has become so intrusive and has so egregiously usurped the powers reserved to the states that the arguments in The Federalist Papers can now be used to contend for a large-scale dismantling of the federal leviathan.

In Federalist #27, Hamilton argues that: “It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; . . . Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective [states], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws.” The all-caps emphasis, my friends, was original, it was his. Notice that he limited the national government to “the enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction” and “its just and constitutional authority.” He’s limiting the Feds to what the constitution specifically enumerates as federal powers—all else is reserved to the states. 
There is nothing wrong with our federalist constitution. The problem is that neither the courts nor the legislature nor the executive have restrained the reach of the federal government to those powers granted it by the constitution.

Citing examples of federal tyranny is all too easy. For a simple project, research the amount of land in the western states owned by or controlled by the federal government. Find in the constitution a provision allowing the federal government the power of determining whether West Virginia shall burn coal to produce electricity, or Alaska drill for oil, or how many miles per gallon an automobile must attain to be manufactured in Detroit, or how much corn a farmer in Iowa is allowed to plant. Study how the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8) has been wholly twisted by the courts and legislature to give the Feds unprecedented power over the economy.

If we are to reclaim our nation, we must restore sovereignty to the states and wholly eliminate—not improve, but eliminate—entire departments of the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson, on settling questions about the Constitution

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. [emphasis mine]

This quotation of Thomas Jefferson was contained in a personal letter he wrote to William Johnson, June 12, 1823. In context, I understand it had to do with the Second Amendment. However I imagine that as a matter of principle this is how Jefferson would have every question on the Constitution settled ("On every question," he said).

It's a far cry from the view taken by judical activists regarding a "living Constitution."